Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Betting on the Engineers

dilbert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#41

Post by pbhjpbhj »

brown9-2 wrote: post #5
sbierwagen wrote: post #3

Christ, Scott actually bought BP stock after the oil spill? I can see how his "buy stock of evil companies" strategy might work, but typically you do that when the company is actually doing well, and not, say, when they're about to be curb stomped by the US government. Also, his complaint about the "liberal media" is somewhat disingenuous, seeing as how he is part of the liberal media, what with the anti-corporate co…

Up until today their stock price was down 25% from a month ago. He's pretty clearly betting that the short-term damage to the stock from the media coverage is just a blip in the long-term outlook of a pretty successful company.

He's also just told everyone of his millions of readers to by BP, even at a small percentage uptake the prices should lift a little now? Once they start rising then people will think it's for a good reason.

Basically I think he's gaming the market ;0)

At least for today he won 3.5-5% on his gamble depending on the exchange.

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#43

Post by anamax »

jbooth wrote: post #24
chrislo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought "I admire them in the same way I admire the work ethic of serial killers" was pretty funny. That probably says more about me than the article though ...

That part was disgusting. If they stop all of the oil immediately, they've already done damage that we'll be cleaning up for decades. They've probably destroyed about 100 billion worth of revenue in the fishing business alone over the next 10 years. And will they be held liable? For causing 100s of billions of economic damage over the medium-long term, let alone the environmental damage? Of course not, because they h…

> If they stop all of the oil immediately, they've already done damage that we'll be cleaning up for decades. They've probably destroyed about 100 billion worth of revenue in the fishing business alone over the next 10 years.

Does the Exxon Valdez experience support this theory? How about the IXTOC blowout in 1979, which lasted for 9 months and dumped way more oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

I ask because both of these were the roughly the same size (EV) or significantly larger (IXTOC) and their impact was much smaller than you've claimed. If their not relevant, why not?

So, what's the basis for your claim about the amount of damage?

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#44

Post by jbooth »

anamax wrote: post #43
jbooth wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That part was disgusting. If they stop all of the oil immediately, they've already done damage that we'll be cleaning up for decades. They've probably destroyed about 100 billion worth of revenue in the fishing business alone over the next 10 years. And will they be held liable? For causing 100s of billions of economic damage over the medium-long term, let alone the environmental damage? Of course not, because they h…

> If they stop all of the oil immediately, they've already done damage that we'll be cleaning up for decades. They've probably destroyed about 100 billion worth of revenue in the fishing business alone over the next 10 years. Does the Exxon Valdez experience support this theory? How about the IXTOC blowout in 1979, which lasted for 9 months and dumped way more oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I ask because both of these…

Hey, a reasonable response. I was under the impression this is bigger than the Valdex spill, but the fact that IXTOC was bigger means this might not be as big a deal as I thought.

It's still just offshore from the Mississippi delta, which will hopefully not be ruined. And I still think it's a little perverse to be cheering them on for the fact that our corrupt system won't hold them accountable.

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#45

Post by _delirium »

sliverstorm wrote: post #32
blehn wrote: post #27

...my theory that you should buy stocks in the companies that you hate the most Wow, that's a pretty sad statement. No wonder our economic system is so fucked up. We've got people out there investing in companies they'd otherwise prefer never existed. Then, of course, there are machines making billions of transactions a day in an effort to game the system. Unless people start investing in companies that they truly be…

It has always been very American to love the underdog (maybe it's human, not American, but I myself am not in a position to vouch for the rest of the globe). So, the companies that we like and want to succeed are almost invariably the smaller companies, and the companies we hate are the successful ones.

I think some of that isn't just hating the successful companies, but the big/boring ones. Betting that the huge firm dominating a market will continue to dominate the market in basically the same way, with minor variants of their current products, probably is often the smart bet, but it's a really boring possibility to root for. Some innovative company shaking up the market is a lot more interesting!

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#46

Post by hristov »

It is depressing to hear Scott Adams trot out the tired old lie about the liberal media.

But he is right that BP is a good buy. The sad truth is that after the Bush years the law is so much in favour of oil companies and the federal courts are so packed with conservative judges, that it is doubtful that BP will have to pay much for this disaster. You probably do not remember but the Exxon Valdes case concluded just a couple of years ago and Exxon got away with paying a very minimal sum considering the scope of the disaster.

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#47

Post by sbierwagen »

brown9-2 wrote: post #8
sbierwagen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might quibble that the long term outlook of an oil company are perhaps not the best. Of course, they've got the alternative energy division, which had $5 billion in sales in 2008. Pity it operated at a net loss, costing BP one and a quarter billion dollars.

well, "long term" as in next few years, not 50 years.

Your definition of long term is "the next few years"?

Even so, the near future prospects of BP aren't terribly good either, what with the crashing price of oil, (good for us, bad for oil companies) the numerous civil lawsuits and (singular) criminal investigation resulting from the oil spill, and the prospect of a moratorium on offshore drilling, coupled with additional regulation.

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#48

Post by pchristensen »

brown9-2 wrote: post #5
sbierwagen wrote: post #3

Christ, Scott actually bought BP stock after the oil spill? I can see how his "buy stock of evil companies" strategy might work, but typically you do that when the company is actually doing well, and not, say, when they're about to be curb stomped by the US government. Also, his complaint about the "liberal media" is somewhat disingenuous, seeing as how he is part of the liberal media, what with the anti-corporate co…

Up until today their stock price was down 25% from a month ago. He's pretty clearly betting that the short-term damage to the stock from the media coverage is just a blip in the long-term outlook of a pretty successful company.

Ditto for the recent Toyota brouhaha.

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#49

Post by timwiseman »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36
blehn wrote: post #27

...my theory that you should buy stocks in the companies that you hate the most Wow, that's a pretty sad statement. No wonder our economic system is so fucked up. We've got people out there investing in companies they'd otherwise prefer never existed. Then, of course, there are machines making billions of transactions a day in an effort to game the system. Unless people start investing in companies that they truly be…

Suppose you want to invest in a company you truly believe in. Where will you get the shares from? Unless someone else thinks it's crap and wants to unload it, there will be no one to buy it from. Luckily, there is a machine out there willing to sell it to you. An evil evil machine.

Suppose you want to invest in a company you truly believe in. Where will you get the shares from? Unless someone else thinks it's crap and wants to unload it, there will be no one to buy it from.

There are a reasons to sell a shares besides thinking that a company is bad. Sells are also sold to raise capital, this may of course be done by the company itself to raise capital for expansion or in lieu of a loan. This is precisely what an IPO is and companies will also do it post IPO if the cirumstances are right.

But individual or institutional stock holders may also sell it to raise capital even while thinking that the company is doing fine and will likely go up over the long run. If the money was invested specifically for retirement or college for instance, it will be withdrawn (the shares sold) for that reason. An individual or instution may also sell some shares to support diversification or to move to a lower risk investment class while believing the company is most likely to prosper. And of course its perfectly rational to sell your shares if you believe an overall market decline is coming, even if the intention is to rebuy those shares when you believe it is near the bottom

There will be plenty of people to buy stock in any major company without anyone necessarily believing the stock is bad.

Re: Betting on the Engineers

#50

Post by billswift »

jbooth wrote: post #21
mapleoin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes guys, the apparent devastation of the Gulf is entirely a product of liberal propaganda -- things are actually perfectly fine. Is the Dodo bird also still alive and well?

I dunno, I just know that the liberal media is really screwing up the "drill baby drill" rhetoric with their incessant propaganda about a minor accident. They're talking like there's hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil in the Gulf or something.

>It's a catastrophe, no doubt, but even catastrophes have levels. I'm betting the financial damage will be very, very, very bad and not very, very, very, very bad.

Where do you get "minor accident" from "very, very, very bad"? He is just saying that the liberal media is, as it usually does (ratings anyone?) exaggerating the situation. It doesn't help either that mass media types covering this kind of problem are usually the sorts that have orgasms from hugging trees.

Post reply on HN